Greenwald now says Snowden's email is irrelevant after calling it the "biggest news" one day ago

[Cali_Democrat]

First Greenwald says the email is the biggest news from the NBC/Snowden interview:

Biggest news from NBC/Snowden interview: NBC confirmed Snowden filed written concerns with NSA - something USG has vehemently denied.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) May 29, 2014

So now that the email contents have been disclosed, Greenwald says it's irrelevant:

As @benwizner says, whether Snowden first invoked the “proper” (deliberately impotent) channels is also irrelevant http://t.co/tPSjMkD5vV

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) May 30, 2014

One day the email is the biggest news, but the next day it's irrelevant after we actually see the contents.

Greenwald is unintentionally hilarious.

[Enrique]

1. hat tip Little Green Footballs?

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/43441_The_Sneering_Dishonesty_and_Hypocrisy_of_Glenn_Greenwald_Part_294

[DisgustipatedinCA]

12. Good find. But no, I don't think you'll see a hat tip from the OP

He wants to make it appear to be his own original thought. It's understandable, since the material is from a right wing blog. It's still ethically inexcusable, but it's at least understandable.

[Cali_Democrat]

24. These are Glenn Greenwald's tweets

Why should I have to attribute Glenn's tweets to another website?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

30. Golly gee, I don't know.

Could it be for the exact selfsame reason described above? I think it very well could be.

[Cali_Democrat]

33. So because another website also described Glenn Greenwald's hilarious contradiction,

I have to attribute it to them even though the OP is entirely my commentary and the tweets are Greenwald's?

Okie dokie....

[DisgustipatedinCA]

36. Quoting tweets has never been the matter in dispute

It's the "analysis" that's in question. You either borrowed material from a right wing blog without attribution, or you thought it up on your own at the same time they did and you and the bagger both decided to post it on the same day. I like that one. Let's go with it. Fuck that Occam guy anyway.

[Cali_Democrat]

42. Actually a comment at the end of an article I was reading while crusing google news...

mentioned Greenwald's tweets.

I decided to go to his twitter feed and check it out......

Now, maybe the commenter read the website mentioned above.

How the fuck should I know? Why the fuck should I care?

It's Glenn's twitter feed and I attributed the tweets to greenwald and the commentary in my OP is entirely my own.

You really have way too much time on your hands...

[Hissyspit]

68. It's not a contradiction.

And therefore it's not hilarious.

[nashville_brook]

31. bc it's their the story.

[pnwmom]

81. Why is it their exclusive story when anyone in the world could have seen these quotes

and noticed the discrepancy?

[pnwmom]

48. Enrique is the one who's been trolling RW sites. There's no evidence Cali has been.

GEG's tweets are out there for the world to see.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

55. I'd request that you re-read everything above this line.

You'll gain a better understanding of what I've talked about. Thanks.

[pnwmom]

61. Sorry, once is enough. If there's something specific you're talking about, tell me. n/t

[DisgustipatedinCA]

73. I did talk about it. You weren't able to get it. Have a nice weekend.

[OilemFirchen]

58. Which of today's articles is the most right-wingish?

• Erick Erickson Analyzes Isla Vista Shootings, Concludes Men Are the Real Victims
  
• Maya Angelou Passes Away, Right Wingers Spew Hatred and Racism
  
• Joe the Plumber to Families of Isla Vista Victims: ‘Your Dead Kids Don’t Trump’ the 2nd Amendment
  
• Sarah Palin Embarrasses Herself by Ranting About the ‘Government’s Zombie Apocalypse Plan’
  
• Proposed GOP Law Would Bar FCC From Treating Broadband as a Utility
  
• Alan Keyes Claims Gay Rights Will Lead to ‘Self-Inflicted Genocide’ and ‘Suicide for Humanity’

Could it be the John Hiatt or Joe Bonamassa videos?

Maybe the daily Frank Zappa quote?

[Cali_Democrat]

59. Ya...I'm reading that website right now

The articles don't appear to be right wing to me at all.

That website is attacking right wingers.

[OilemFirchen]

74. Unpossible!

Charles Johnson used to be a neocon and LGF used to be a noxious little wingnut paradise. Five years ago, Johnson repudiated his fellow travelers, stating "The American right wing has gone off the rails, into the bushes, and off the cliff. I won’t be going over the cliff with them." Since then, the site has become a reliably liberal outlet with some of the best contributors on the web, second perhaps only to Sadly, No!

Unsurprisingly, some here, either as a result of having never actually been to LGF or, perhaps, prevarication, enjoy continuing the meme that the new LGF is still the old LGF.

That's especially amusing coming, as it usually does, from Snowden / Greenwald fanboyz who, when presented clear and convincing evidence that their crushes were grotesque Libertarians insist that they have "evolved" - especially with no evidence to suggest that the excuse is true.

Johnson, OTOH, has evolved, and quite dramatically. He is repentant and exhibits his liberal bona fides every day.

BTW, David Brooks went through a comparable conversion. One wonders if MMfA had been a different website at its onset whether we'd be witnessing the same embarrassing spectacle today.

[Cali_Democrat]

76. I like the articles at that website!

I'm happy Enrique provided the link.

Thanks for the history lesson!

[OilemFirchen]

79. My pleasure.

And likely some others' dismay.

ETA: Do try Sadly, No! as well. Superb writing and biting commentary.

[Tarheel_Dem]

94. Don't sweat it. Guess who else used to be a card carrying Republican. Elizabeth Warren, the one...

who most of DU is clamoring to take on HRC, another former Republican.

[OilemFirchen]

106. There are exceptions to every rule.

Except for exceptions to exceptional rules.

[Number23]

101. Interesting post! I have to admit that I was also unaware that the mission of LGF had changed

Not that I will be visiting there (unlike others in this thread) but that's very interesting.

That's especially amusing coming, as it usually does, from Snowden / Greenwald fanboyz who, when presented clear and convincing evidence that their crushes were grotesque Libertarians insist that they have "evolved" - especially with no evidence to suggest that the excuse is true.

Knocked it outta the park.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

75. Yeah, the guy who runs it went and got saved and switched sides in 2009.

Parting ways with the Right

On November 30, 2009, Johnson blogged that he was disassociating himself with "the right", claiming that "The American right wing has gone off the rails, into the bushes, and off the cliff. I won’t be going over the cliff with them." He has been heavily critical of conservatives and libertarians since then.[31]
Alteration and Deletion of Posts

In early September, 2010, it was discovered that Johnson had begun altering some posts and deleting others which expressed sentiments which were substantively similar to the ones he had recently been condemning others for. In one example, Johnson had been condemning opponents of the Park51 project as "bigots", though he had expressed similar opposition to the proposed Flight 93 memorial, which he described as an "Islamic Shrine". Johnson was discovered to have deleted these posts without acknowledging their deletion.[32] Johnson had also described the lead figure in the Park51 project, Feisal Abdul Rauf, as an "Islamic Supremacist," but later revised that description from the post without acknowledging the change[33]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Green_Footballs#Parting_ways_with_the_Right

[Cali_Democrat]

77. So he previously supported Bush and the war on terror....

Kinda like Greenwald:

<...>

This is not to say that I was not angry about the attacks. I believed that Islamic extremism posed a serious threat to the country, and I wanted an aggressive response from our government. I was ready to stand behind President Bush and I wanted him to exact vengeance on the perpetrators and find ways to decrease the likelihood of future attacks. During the following two weeks, my confidence in the Bush administration grew as the president gave a series of serious, substantive, coherent, and eloquent speeches that struck the right balance between aggression and restraint. And I was fully supportive of both the president’s ultimatum to the Taliban and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan when our demands were not met. Well into 2002, the president’s approval ratings remained in the high 60 percent range, or even above 70 percent, and I was among those who strongly approved of his performance.

<...>


I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president’s performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country.

http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/glenn-greenwald-supported-president-bush-as-he-signed-the-patriot-act/

You walked right into that one!!!

[Tarheel_Dem]

80. Uh oh. Now you've REALLY earned the scorn of the Greenwaldians. Of course GG says he had politcal

awakening, and that must not be contradicted.

[SidDithers]

91. And boom goes the dynamite...nt

Sid

[DisgustipatedinCA]

102. No. He supported Bush vocally and in print, unlike Greenwald.

Not everything is a "gotcha", you know. But if you want to make it that way, you'll need to be a little better prepared.

[Cali_Democrat]

111. LOL!!

You might as well leave this thread now and save yourself further embarrassment.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

113. No thanks.

You magically used the words of a right-winger and came to the exact same faulty conclusion, and I should be embarrassed. You go, Jimmy O.

[Cali_Democrat]

116. "You magically used the words of a right-winger"

Which words would those be?

[Number23]

105. And thus endeth the subthread...

[OilemFirchen]

83. It's his website, BTW. So he can do whatever the fuck he wants.

Kinda like The Intercept, including First Look at Me Media. But with style.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

104. Is there a cloud you should be yelling at?

Had I ever argued that this guy couldn't write "whatever the fuck he wants", you might have a point. But since I didn't, you're on the cusp of incoherence, and I just don't have the time. Thanks.

[OilemFirchen]

112. You're welcome.

Oh, BTW... now that you've acknowledged that LGF is not a "right wing blog", is it "still ethically inexcusable"?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

114. I've acknowledged no such thing, and I've already bid you farewell.

[OilemFirchen]

118. I'm ecstatic that you've opted to ignore Cali_Democrat's advice.

This thread may become epic.

Ta ta!

[Whisp]

173. 'First Look at Me' Media...... BWHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!

[Tarheel_Dem]

178. Don't you mean the "fledgling" 'First Look at Me'?

Glenn Greenwald's Website Loses A National Security Blogger

National security and civil liberties blogger Marcy Wheeler announced Firday she had left The Intercept, the digital news organization founded by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald and billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar.

Wheeler announced her "voluntary and amicable" split from the fledgling site on her blog.

She said her departure had nothing to do with her coverage of Ukraine, or the site's relative inactivity that editor-in-chief John Cook addressed last month.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/marcy-wheeler-leaves-the-intercept

They have to make shit up to stoke interest, and that's just sad.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

103. Charles Johnson appears to have a major hard-on for Greenwald...

anyone know the history? Does this date back to the Bush years? At least now I know where The Swarm gets their ideas: "sneering," "raving egomaniac," and "malignant extremist," to highlight a few.

Overwrought, personal, histrionic, unoriginal...

Charming.

[joshcryer]

146. It's where the hits are.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

186. That's a sad state of affairs.

Didn't DU at one time consider Little Green Footballs to be on par with Free Republic, Charles Johnson akin to RimJob? Seems that Johnson has had a number of ideological shifts; well, but for his "anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Green_Footballs

Pro-Israel, pro-NSA, hawkish -- who needs Pamela Geller when (some) DUers have this guy?

[Benton D Struckcheon]

2. Early on, I objected to Greenwald's obvious ignorance re technology,

but since then, I haven't posted anything objecting to what he says or does. This is because he is a journalist, and he gets to do/say/write whatever he pleases. He has also shown very good judgment re what he publishes, IMO.
So, Greenwald is fine. Snowden, OTOH, knows that there is a big difference between objecting to the NSA spying on US people, which is seriously unconstitutional, and spying on foreign governments, which most certainly isn't. He knows the difference. He knows what he did. He'll never return because of that knowledge.

[Whisp]

3. LOL. Of course that is expected of a proven liar. The PTL Club won't mind tho. n/t

[DisgustipatedinCA]

4. Proven liar? Your wish projection is showing

As much as you and your crowd pine for Snowden to be caught in a lie, it hasn't happened yet. I'm sure you'll keep trying without my exhortation. Nonetheless, keep trying.

[Hissyspit]

23. Sorry, it's not a contradiction on Greenwald's part.

I know you and the OP want it to be, but it's not.

[woo me with science]

46. There is no history of lying from Snowden. You, on the other hand,

posted this flatly untrue and even bizarre assertion a few days ago and have yet to even try to substantiate it, despite being asked multiple times to explain based on what you were posting it:

Whisp (23,577 posts)
130. GG lumps: helping with a crime.

He knew Snowcone before Snow went to the NSA. Collaboration.

Manning, as far as I know, was a lone wolf.

Still waiting (cough) for a link, although by now it appears this is just another example of the quality of the "facts" we can expect from those who side aggressively and full-time with proven liars Clapper and the NSA.

[randome]

132. Easy enough to find for anyone with objective typing skills.

Greenwald was in contact with Snowden in December, 2012.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-greenwald/edward-snowden-no-place-to-hide-excerpt_b_5315109.html

Snowden started back at the NSA in early 2013.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden

Good enough?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[woo me with science]

140. How embarrassing, or shameless, to post links that prove the untruthfulness of your own claims.

From your own Wikipedia link:

Snowden resigned from the CIA in February 2009[66] and began work as an NSA contractor for Dell...He was one of around 1,000 NSA "sysadmins" allowed to look at many parts of the system without leaving an electronic trace and able to argue for the use of thumb drives in a secure environment.[66] ...

Persons familiar with the 2013 government investigation into Snowden's history said that Snowden had downloaded sensitive NSA material in April 2012.[83] Investigators estimated that of the 50,000 to 200,000 documents Snowden gave to Greenwald and Poitras, he'd gotten most of those while working at Dell.[3]

So, no, he was working as an NSA contractor starting in 2009 and was already downloading documents by April 2012. The vast majority of what he gave Poitras and Snowden was from that time, according to your own article.

He did not contact Snowden until December 2012.

[randome]

143. He quit working for the NSA then returned in early 2013.

So, yes, Greenwald was speaking with Snowden before he returned to the NSA. I see your point but Snowden says he started with Booz-Allen for the express purpose of stealing more documents and he was talking to Greenwald before that so...eh.

It seems to me that Greenwald is much deeper into this than he would like to admit. Snowden's email about a technical question regarding his training seems like an attempt to leave a paper trail in case he needed it. If that's the case, it was an embarrassingly naive one. Which sounds, to me, like the concoction of two very naive individuals in collusion.

But that's just my opinion.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Sometimes it seems like the only purpose in life is to keep your car from touching another's.[/center][/font][hr]

[woo me with science]

144. EXHIBIT A of the diversion & twisting to mislead that has become so familiar from the NSA Defense.

Last edited Fri May 30, 2014, 11:50 PM - Edit history (1)

(I actually should say Exhibit B, because Whisp's original false smear was A in this context.)

Whisp's ugly insinuation, the attempted argument here, was that they colluded before he worked for NSA and downloaded material.

Your very own link proves that is false.

So you try a desperate argument that he went back later, which is irrelevant to the claim that they colluded before he accessed the documents.

This post of yours is another excellent example of why the NSA/Clapper defense propaganda crew at DU has earned its total lack of credibility here.

_____________________________________________

The most disturbing thing about these sorts of tag team manipulative arguments is that their tactics merely echo the tactics now being used by our own government against us.

Now, that's disturbing as hell.


.

[Whisp]

152. lol. Of course you can't back out now. Just carry on!

It's entertaining.

[woo me with science]

160. Why would I back out? Your smear was proven untrue.

You should read my edits. I predicted that you two would end with a *headline* pretending you had won. That's what propagandists and talking point dispensers do, so that casual readers might come away with the wrong impression.

The irony is that anyone who actually reads this thread comes away with a very different message than the one you tried to put here. A message about the brazen, serial dishonesty of the pro-NSA smear machine.


*To the inevitable jury. Please read the entire thread.

[Whisp]

161. Snowden's and GG's house of cards are falling down

I expect the fanclub to be nervous and defensive and start making personal attacks against the nonbleevers.

As I said, Please Proceed Mr. Woo.

[ProSense]

5. .

[Hissyspit]

26. It's not hilarious.

And it's not a contradiction.

[ProSense]

27. Yes,

"It's not hilarious. And it's not a contradiction."

...it is.

Greenwald is saying the issue is "irrelevant" now because the e-mail claim fell flat and Snowden can't produce any evidence.

I mean, why did he consider this the "biggest news"? Why would he still?

Wizner didn't claim it was the "biggest news."

Ben Wizner, Director of the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project and legal adviser to Snowden, dismissed the controversy over Snowden’s internal efforts as a “red herring” to the larger issue of mass surveillance.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/nsa-releases-snowden-email-nbc-truth/story?id=23918598&singlePage=true

NBC:

<...>

Just six months ago, the NSA told the Washington Post’s Bart Gellman that no evidence of a paper trail existed. “After extensive investigation, including interviews with his former NSA supervisors and co-workers, we have not found any evidence to support Mr. Snowden's contention that he brought these matters to anyone's attention," said the agency in a statement.

On Thursday, however, White House spokesman Jay Carney said the Snowden email would be made public "later today." It was released a short time later by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Before it was made public, two U.S. officials who had read the email sent by Snowden to the NSA’s Office of General Counsel on April 5, 2013, a month before he stopped working as an NSA contractor, told NBC News the message -- the only email found to date, they say -- questioned agency policies and practices.

One U.S. official who had read the email said that in it Snowden asked a question about how the NSA was interpreting its legal justifications for domestic surveillance, and wrote out a hierarchy of U.S. law, with the Constitution at the top. Beneath the Constitution he placed federal statutes, and under them, Defense Department regulations, Office of the Director of National Intelligence regulations, and NSA policy.

- more -

http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/edward-snowden-interview/paper-trail-email-backs-snowdens-claim-he-sent-concerns-nsa-n11708

It was BS.

Snowden email fell short of NSA criticism
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025020097

[Hissyspit]

71. No, it's not.

See Post #57.

[ProSense]

72. Yes, it is. I saw it, and it's a misread. It also has nothing to do with the point I made. n/t

[Blue_Tires]

6. Everyone should follow Glenn's twitter feed

or at least check it once a day...If his tweets are a true representation of his unfiltered thoughts, then he is truly a schizoid...

[Cali_Democrat]

7. Did you notice that Glenn Greenwald referenced a DUer in his twitter feed?

Look carefully

[1StrongBlackMan]

35. Who would that be? eom.

[Cali_Democrat]

37. Look at the tweet from

14 hours ago:

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald

one of those names look familiar?

[Tarheel_Dem]

40. Oh come on, how 'bout for those of us who don't tweet? The curiosity is killin' us.

[joshcryer]

52. Luminous Animal, his biggest defender here.

[Tarheel_Dem]

60. Well that makes sense.

[joshcryer]

66. Hope she's getting paid.

Would be a big waste otherwise.

[Tarheel_Dem]

69. GG=Sheister. Once an ambulance chaser, always an ambulance chaser. I'll bet Pierre is spending....

huge $$$$$ to win the internetz for GG.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

92. "Sheister" - is that how the kids are spelling it these days? (n/t)

[Tarheel_Dem]

98. Nope. We're spelling it GG! Same difference.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

109. Whooooosh!

But I'll give those with S/GDS credit, not a "GiGi" to be found in this thread. Yet.

[Whisp]

174. I'm shocked!

I wonder if LA is one of those that accuse a certain DUer with 'blue linkosis' and being a shill and getting paid for posting Democratic positive OPs on a Democratic Forum which is the gravest of sins.

Freaking rich with laughter this one.

[1StrongBlackMan]

54. I'm at a loss. eom.

[msanthrope]

122. Oh my....did you ever read the thread where I was threatened about how the

Internet worked???

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3040270

read the thread, friend...and you'll see just how LGF gets under the GG skin.

[Jamaal510]

8. "schizoid"

[MohRokTah]

39. There's nothing more hilarious than a Glenn Greenwald Twit Fit

I can see he's building up to a juicy one soon.

[Hissyspit]

65. Ad Hominem, as usual.

I do follow his feed.

[JI7]

9. when is he going to release the names ? and isn't there some other big thing he says that still

will be revealed ?


is he saving it for the Film ?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

10. No. It's still big news that NSA was caught in another lie.

Greenwald agrees with the ACLU that the question of whether Snowden first (adverb) invoked (verb being modified) proper channels is irrelevant, since there was no good channel Snowden could use to bring this to light other than taking it to the public.

O'Keefe might give you a particpation award for trying, but you've failed to make any cogent point about Glenn Greenwald. For my part, I'm always appreciative when someone raises awareness that the NSA cannot stop lying to save its life. Thank you for that.

[Cali_Democrat]

13. O'Keefe?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

15. bless you. nt

[Cali_Democrat]

16. Thanks

Judging from your replies in this thread, it appears as though I have touched a nerve by posting Greenwald tweets...

[JI7]

19. people are upset, they made a huge thing out of all of this but the actual things that come out

turn out to be nothing and makes the guy they consider a hero look bad.

also snowden interview tied for 2nd place in ratings with a rerun of some show. first place was a rerun of another show.

i think people lost interest because the things that were coming out was spying on foreign sources which everyone does.

and then you had snowden do pr for Putin with that q&a .

[Tarheel_Dem]

43. Sibel Edmonds says you DO NOT want to stir up GG's devotees. She's, obviously, had some brushes....

with some of his most fierce defenders, and it wasn't pretty. They are so personally invested in this guy, that it's kinda creepy.

[VanillaRhapsody]

157. tell us something we don't know....there is some of that kind of creepy right here on DU!

[Tarheel_Dem]

159. And they have absolutely no sense of irony. Apparently, all his detractors are "paid".

[VanillaRhapsody]

162. Well my check musta gotten lost in the mail....Damn you USPS!!!!

[Tarheel_Dem]

172. That makes two of us.

[Whisp]

175. That's probably GG posing as a fierce defender/s.

He's done that before, register other names to support the Greenwald posts.

Snivelling little puke

[Tarheel_Dem]

177. I have an idea of his DU name, but won't say aloud. Nasty, horrible, thin skinned,

greedy little fart.

[msanthrope]

179. PM me??? nt

[randome]

197. Another Scott Adams, huh? Figures.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Vattel]

17. Ty for pointing out that the OP is yet another attempt to identify inconsistency where none exists.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

53. Anytime.

I see that we've now moved into the "I must have hit a nerve for you to be here on this discussion board discussing this" phase of the thread. Thanks for being one of the voices of sanity in this hit piece of a thread.

[MNBrewer]

63. I see no "inconsistency" either.

Just more tiresome Greenwald smearing on the part of the OP.

[NanceGreggs]

82. Saying that something is the "biggest news" one day ...

... and saying it is "irrelevant" the next day is NOT an inconsistency?

Are you serious?

[MNBrewer]

88. Serious as a heart attack, Nance.

"Biggest news" out of an interview one day is that he filed written concerns. That's ONE thing.

"Irrelevant" whether he invoked the proper channels. That's ANOTHER, different, thing.

See?

[NanceGreggs]

96. Uh, no.

Snowden claims that he sent multiple emails raising his concerns about illegal activity. Greenwald claimed THAT 'fact' to be "big news".

When no evidence of such emails ("filed written concerns&quot could be found, Greenwald then declared that whether Snowden sent those emails (as claimed) is "irrelevant".

In other words, when the "big news" FACT turned out to be not factual at all, it was immediately deemed "irrelevant".

Again, the obvious question: If Snowden "filed written concerns", why did he not keep copies - whether they were "through proper channels" or not?

[Tarheel_Dem]

99. Well Nance, sometimes in the haze of committing crimes, you can't expect to remember everything.

[NanceGreggs]

119. True that!

Snowden was just another one of those super-intelligent bank robbers who pulled off the 'perfect' heist - every detail scrutinized, every contingency planned for, every move carefully orchestrated from every possible angle. The fact that Mr. Mastermind 'forgot' to arrange for a getaway car is "irrelevant".

It happens all the time - it's just not widely reported.

[uponit7771]

167. Cause Snowden is a super cracker (tt) , he'll crack a file and store it in his cerebral cortex !!!

[Vattel]

139. You do a good job leading horses to water.

Making them drink is impossible though.

[uponit7771]

168. No 'hero' uses this amount of sophistry during just normal questioning... they're full of crap

...and didn't file crap with the NSA...

Why wouldn't he take the freakin emails of him going through proper channels along with 1.7mill other documents?!

[joshcryer]

147. He did not in fact file any concerns.

He made a generic query. This is completely different.

What happened was Greenwald jumped the gun, confirmation bias set in, and he assumed that what Snowden had asked was some specific thing. When analyzed by the punditry Greenwald found himself at odds with what he was saying and the truth. Which is typical for him.

[uponit7771]

166. Ummm, fuckin no Snowden said he DID invoke proper channels.. he fuckin lied... PERIOD

... and that's about what?!

The 3rd bold faced out front lie the guy has told this year?!?!!?

Even if SnowGlen detractors are half right both gentlemen don't have their crap stories together.

The guy stole 1.7 million documents and left his emails of him going through proper channels!?!?!?

yeah... ok

[ProSense]

25. Greenwald

"No. It's still big news that NSA was caught in another lie.

Greenwald agrees with the ACLU that the question of whether Snowden first (adverb) invoked (verb being modified) proper channels is irrelevant, since there was no good channel Snowden could use to bring this to light other than taking it to the public."

...is saying the issue is "irrelevant" now because the e-mail claim fell flat and Snowden can't produce any evidence.

I mean, why did he consider this the "biggest news"? Why would he still?

Wizner didn't claim it was the "biggest news."

Ben Wizner, Director of the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project and legal adviser to Snowden, dismissed the controversy over Snowden’s internal efforts as a “red herring” to the larger issue of mass surveillance.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/nsa-releases-snowden-email-nbc-truth/story?id=23918598&singlePage=true

NBC:

<...>

Just six months ago, the NSA told the Washington Post’s Bart Gellman that no evidence of a paper trail existed. “After extensive investigation, including interviews with his former NSA supervisors and co-workers, we have not found any evidence to support Mr. Snowden's contention that he brought these matters to anyone's attention," said the agency in a statement.

On Thursday, however, White House spokesman Jay Carney said the Snowden email would be made public "later today." It was released a short time later by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Before it was made public, two U.S. officials who had read the email sent by Snowden to the NSA’s Office of General Counsel on April 5, 2013, a month before he stopped working as an NSA contractor, told NBC News the message -- the only email found to date, they say -- questioned agency policies and practices.

One U.S. official who had read the email said that in it Snowden asked a question about how the NSA was interpreting its legal justifications for domestic surveillance, and wrote out a hierarchy of U.S. law, with the Constitution at the top. Beneath the Constitution he placed federal statutes, and under them, Defense Department regulations, Office of the Director of National Intelligence regulations, and NSA policy.

- more -

http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/edward-snowden-interview/paper-trail-email-backs-snowdens-claim-he-sent-concerns-nsa-n11708

It was BS.

Snowden email fell short of NSA criticism
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025020097

[JI7]

11. this is like Benghazi when republicans go on about "why didn't he call it terrrosim"

"why didn't ....................". and when they are shown facts they switch to something else.

[Maven]

14. Keeping up with those Republican blogs are we?

Now that you've been exposed, the least you could do is edit your OP to give attribution, doncha think?

[Cali_Democrat]

20. "Now that you've been exposed"

Ya...I exposed myself by posting Greenwald's own tweets and my commentary....

[Cali_Democrat]

62. I assume you're referring to the first post in this thread

You sure it's a Republican blog?

Here are some of the recent articles posted on that website:

Erick Erickson Analyzes Isla Vista Shootings, Concludes Men Are the Real Victims
Maya Angelou Passes Away, Right Wingers Spew Hatred and Racism
Joe the Plumber to Families of Isla Vista Victims: ‘Your Dead Kids Don’t Trump’ the 2nd Amendment
Sarah Palin Embarrasses Herself by Ranting About the ‘Government’s Zombie Apocalypse Plan’
Proposed GOP Law Would Bar FCC From Treating Broadband as a Utility
Alan Keyes Claims Gay Rights Will Lead to ‘Self-Inflicted Genocide’ and ‘Suicide for Humanity’

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5027230

[WorseBeforeBetter]

188. So he condemns far-right whack-jobs and the BOG applauds? BFD.

Anyone with the bare minimum of functioning brain cells should be doing that.

I'm finding Johnson's "anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment" a bit more note-worthy, plus the alteration/deletion of past posts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Green_Footballs#Allegations_of_anti-Arab_and_anti-Muslim_sentiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Green_Footballs#Alteration_and_Deletion_of_Posts

[Cali_Democrat]

191. A few things:

1) BOG applauds? What do you mean?

2) What about Greenwald's past?

Greenwald's own words:

<...>

This is not to say that I was not angry about the attacks. I believed that Islamic extremism posed a serious threat to the country, and I wanted an aggressive response from our government. I was ready to stand behind President Bush and I wanted him to exact vengeance on the perpetrators and find ways to decrease the likelihood of future attacks. During the following two weeks, my confidence in the Bush administration grew as the president gave a series of serious, substantive, coherent, and eloquent speeches that struck the right balance between aggression and restraint. And I was fully supportive of both the president’s ultimatum to the Taliban and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan when our demands were not met. Well into 2002, the president’s approval ratings remained in the high 60 percent range, or even above 70 percent, and I was among those who strongly approved of his performance.

<...>


I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president’s performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country.

http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/glenn-greenwald-supported-president-bush-as-he-signed-the-patriot-act/

And yet few problems are more pressing. Over the past several years, illegal immigrants have poured into the United States by the millions. The wave of illegals entering the country is steadily increasing. The people living in the border states of California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico know this flow has to be drastically slowed and then halted. The situation is so dire in that region that the Democratic Governors of Arizona and New Mexico were forced to declare States of Emergency as a result of the flow of illegals into their states and the resulting, massive problems which it brings.

The parade of evils caused by illegal immigration is widely known, and it gets worse every day. In short, illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone. Few people dispute this, and yet nothing is done.

SNIP......


But one of the most disturbing and destructive aspects of illegal immigration is that it is illegal. Indeed, that is the precise attribute which separates good immigration from bad immigration. Why should Republicans, or anyone, shy away from pointing out that illegal immigration, among its many evils, is “illegal”? That is just absurd. Moreover, it is precisely the fact that illegal immigrants enter the country illegally that spawns justifiable resentment, not only among large clusters of middle-of-the-road voters, but also among the very legal immigrant population about which Sanchez is so concerned. Emphasizing the "illegal" part of this problem is what Republicans need to do more of, not less.

SNIP..

The real irony here is that the problem of illegal immigration is actually one of the very few of the ever-dwindling number of issues that has the opportunity to forge common ground among factions of voters which are, these days, engaged in a ceaseless war with each other. Being worried, and outraged, about illegal immigration is not confined to the extreme precincts of conservatism. Middle-class suburban voters whose primary concerns are local and pragmatic, rather than ideological, know the danger which illegal immigration poses to their communities and to their states, and they want something done about it.


http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/11/gop-fights-itself-on-illegal.html

Oh...did you know he also defended a white supremacist?

Glenn Greenwald Unethically Taped Witnesses While Working for Matt Hale, White Supremacist.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211

[WorseBeforeBetter]

192. I'm neutral on Greenwald -- disagree with some things; agree with others.

But I vaguely remember Johnson and Little Green Footballs being particularly vile -- Free Republic vile. I won't join in on the applause being directed at him now.

[Cali_Democrat]

193. That's fine. I agree with green footballs on some things and not on others.

I hadn't heard of green footballs until Friday.

What do you mean by the BOG applauding that website? I went to that group and I don't see a single post about green footballs.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

194. It's easy to agree about Brian Eno...

but some of his Pamela Geller-ish opinions on Islam disgust me.

Anyone -- and I mean ANYONE -- who trashes Greenwald and Snowden is applauded by some on this site, primarily BOGers. You know that. It's evident in this thread.

This screams "issues":

The Sneering Dishonesty and Hypocrisy of Glenn Greenwald, Part 294
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/43441_The_Sneering_Dishonesty_and_Hypocrisy_of_Glenn_Greenwald_Part_294#tJtjOg6LRe8lHqKe.99

...and life is too short.

[Cali_Democrat]

195. just like some of greenwald's previous views on immigration and the war on terror disgust me....

But I'm still scratching my head about the BOG thing.

There's no mention of green footballs there. In fact, hardly anyone even posts in the BOG. There's very little traffic there.

So what does green footballs have to do with the BOG?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

199. Lords knows...

DU is *treated* to Crap Blog after Crap Blog reminding us what a narcissistic, sneering poopy-head Greenwald is (Jesus, it was hard to type that -- it boggles my mind that someone actually makes a living from it!).

Some BOGers -- you seem to be inferring that I meant posts solely in the group (forum, whatever it's called) known as the BOG. They do venture out, you know.

I just reached my limit with personalities, let's move on to something that really matters:

Senate budget would cut elderly, blind and disabled from Medicaid rolls
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10694889

Proposed North Carolina Fracking Law Tied to Koch, Halliburton, and ALEC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10694815

If your water comes from these watersheds:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10694834

[Sheepshank]

18. NSA said they never got *any* emails from Snowden

or NSA qualified that they didn't get emails from Snowden that are of a whistleblowing nature?

NBC confirmed Snowden filed written concerns with NSA - something USG has vehemently denied.

[Cali_Democrat]

21. I believe NBC got it from FOIA request directly

Although I'm not for sure.

[msanthrope]

180. No..it was an NSA release. nt

[karynnj]

121. The NSA did not say they had no emails, they said they had no email that documented concerns

NBC is actually wrong here UNLESS there is another email - as a fair reading would not label that email as documenting concerns - additionally, the response suggests if he has questions, to call. All quite friendly.

[Cha]

28. GG trying to keep himself relevant.. like when he "expertly previewed the 2012 election"..

[Tarheel_Dem]

32. My dear Cha, you find the most interesting stuff on the internetz. How did I miss that gem?

[Cha]

34. You find interesting stuff, Tarheel! We can't

be everywhere..

[MohRokTah]

41. I wish I could rec a response. eom

[Cha]

44. Ya just did. :)

[sheshe2]

117. Oh Lawdy~

Nailed it! You are amazing Cha!

[Cha]

126. Mahalo she.. and how about that "disenchanted" Greenwald

wizard?! Rofl Freaking wishful thinking backfired on his a$$.

[sheshe2]

128. Poor poor Greenwald...

he is still trying to prove that he is relevant, sadly he fails.

Cha!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

187. The BOG treats us to thread after thread re: Greenwald...

SOMEONE considers him relevant.

[OilemFirchen]

124. BENGHAZI!!!

[Cha]

127. Greenwald's such an insipid wizard.. he needs some help for that ODS.

[Cali_Democrat]

154. LOL...the look on Joy Reid's face as Greenwald was rambling on about Benghazi...

...she wanted to smack him!

[Cha]

155. GG is his own worst enemy like ES. Have you seen this?.. It's like this guy read my mind!

A Radical Pro-Transparency Website Is Raising Money To Annoy Glenn Greenwald

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10025028904

you have to read it!

P.S. Bless Joy's Heart!

[stevenleser]

171. Only people who hate Obama and view him as the enemy suggest that Benghazi involves wrongdoing

In that context, I understand why Republicans are all about Benghazi. There is a reason, they are politically motivated and think it will help get their candidates elected.

What reason does a journalist supposedly interested in the truth have for pushing that lie?

[Cali_Democrat]

142. LOL! Definitely wishful thinking

[Cha]

145. GG's such a loser.

[stevenleser]

169. LMAO! This is what happens when you twist facts to fit theories instead of vice-versa.

[Cha]

170. Ya think! Obama wiped

that smug smirk right off his face in Nov 2012 and he's been seething and promoting more more more "disenchantment" ever since.

[msanthrope]

181. I wonder if Mr. Greenwald voted in 2012. nt

[Whisp]

185. omg, solid proof this idiot knows Shit!

Thanks, Cha. That was very informative of what kind of character this guy is. A Bullshitting Twister Liar.

[Cha]

200. A singularly clueless .. what's a nicer term for

"ratfucker"? Oh well you get the picture.. and it ain't pretty.

[Tarheel_Dem]

29. You were, perhaps, expecting consistency from GG? GG's motto: 'If it don't make money, it don't....

make sense'.

[billhicks76]

38. Yawn

I just can't waste more time responding to the pro-surveillance haters. We get it.

[Tarheel_Dem]

47. Ok then, see ya!

[erronis]

56. It's getting hard to parse all the negs of negs of negs

There are obviously some commentators who have a lot of time (and probably a lot of funding) to stroll through various news groups.

They also seem to be well-schooled on how to change the subject and deflect the conversation from the primary points.

Could these individuals be just normal folk (like me, and I hope you), or could they be plants (vegetative/robotic/pay-by-the-click)?

Perhaps we can use some of that fancy "echelon" software to read their posts and discern patterns. Perhaps we could find out that they are in the pay of some DC firm. Or perhaps we could be deflected to believe that they are part of some Chinese Army outfit.

Sorry to ramble, but that's what I do.

[Tarheel_Dem]

64. You mean like the folks who have pet billionaires? That the kind of "funding" you mean?

Those of you who accuse others of being paid, forget that there's a flipside to that coin. Guess who's on the other side of it?



A "billionaire" can buy lots of loyalty on the internet, and everywhere else.

[billhicks76]

141. I Agree

Reminds me off those paid bloggers who front for corporations when there is a news article about their product.

[Maedhros]

45. I don't see the contradiction.

The first tweet is in reference to the claims that Snowden sought no recourse through channels and the fact that the NSA denied receiving written concerns from Snowden. The contents of the email showed Snowden expressing concerns with procedure. That's consistent.

The second tweet simply states that whether Snowden sought recourse through channels or not does not matter. Also true.

Not seeing the problem.

ON EDIT: I've had Cali Democrat on ignore for quite a while now, but somehow she dropped from my ignore list. Weird. I've been noticing this for a few users lately.

[MohRokTah]

50. Bzzzt, blew it on the first sentence.

His email was a question regarding training. IT raised absolutely no concerns about anything anybody in the NSA was doing.

Nice try though. You get an "F" for effort.

[Cha]

49. GG and ES are Liars.. and we're suppose to "yawn" because their "Fan Club" says so..

[MohRokTah]

51. I always wonder if it's worship of GG and ES or if it's hatred of POB.

I think mostly the latter.

[Cha]

84. I dunno.. maybe both equally. I do know that Snowden's Lies are nothing to "yawn" about..

The 13 Most Bizarre Things from Edward Snowden’s NBC News Interview

snip///

Last night, while watching Brian Williams’ interview with Ed Snowden, I actually agreed with Glenn Greenwald about something. Back in 2012, Greenwald referred to Williams as “NBC News’ top hagiographer,” using “his reverent, soothing, self-important baritone” to deliver information in its “purest, most propagandistic, and most subservient form.”

It’s worth noting at the outset that Greenwald flew all the way to Moscow specifically for the NBC News interview, and he appeared on camera with Snowden and Williams, answering questions from this so-called “hagiographer.”

When GG called Brian Williams NBC News' top hagiographer

snip//

1) Snowden claimed he has “no relationship” with the Russian government and that he’s “not supported” by it. That’s odd, given how the Russian government has twice offered him asylum and one of his lawyers, Anatoly Kucherena, is an attorney with the Russian intelligence agency, the FSB (formerly the KGB). Tell me again why anyone should trust this guy?

2) “Sometimes to do the right thing you have to break a law.” So it’s really up to each of us individually to decide whether our own interpretation of “doing the right thing” necessitates breaking the law? A lot of awful things have occurred with that exact justification. Also, what if NSA feels the same way, Ed?

4) Early on, Snowden said, “I’m not a spy.” Later he famously confessed to being “trained as a spy.” Huh?

snip//

12) “People have unfairly demonized the NSA to a point that is too extreme.” Why is Snowden an apologist for the surveillance state? Drooling! Vast!

snip//

"Ultimately, Snowden is his own worst enemy and his ongoing ability to say crazy things in a calm, collected voice continues. What’s abundantly clear at this point is that no one will ever land an interview with Snowden who will be as adversarial against the former NSA contractor as Greenwald has been in his own reporting in defense of Snowden. It’ll never happen."

MOre Shite from Snowden..
http://thedailybanter.com/2014/05/13-bizarre-things-edward-snowdens-nbc-news-interview/

[WorseBeforeBetter]

57. That's not what Greenwald is saying at all.

"This whole dispute is irrelevant. It’s a red herring," the American Civil Liberties Union's Ben Wizner said. "What does it mean to say he should have gone [through] channels? He should have called Congress and said, 'I'm calling to report programs that you’ve approved in secret'? The problem was that the public had not been consulted as the NSA constructed and deployed a system of mass surveillance and there was no channel through which to raise those concerns, except to bring the public into that conversation."

The DISPUTE over "proper" channels is irrelevant, not the content of Snowden's e-mail.

The issue isn't about whether Snowden used e-mail or carrier pigeon, but about NSA over-reach.

Nice twisting, though.

[Hissyspit]

67. Of course not.

[ProSense]

70. Well,

"The DISPUTE over 'proper' channels is irrelevant, not the content of Snowden's e-mail."

...the OP didn't say the "content" of the e-mail is irrelevant. It states that now that the content of the e-mail has been released, Greenwald is saying that the revelation that the e-mail exists, that it as an issue is "irrelevant."

[WorseBeforeBetter]

85. No,

"...the OP didn't say the "content" of the e-mail is irrelevant. It states that now that the content of the e-mail has been released, Greenwald is saying that the revelation that the e-mail exists, that it as an issue is "irrelevant."

half a dozen or so in this thread have inferred that the existence and/or content of the e-mail is irrelevant. Greenwald's tweet doesn't back that up, no matter how much wishful thinking on the part of those with S/GDS.

[ProSense]

89. Again,

"half a dozen or so in this thread have inferred that the existence and/or content of the e-mail is irrelevant. Greenwald's tweet doesn't back that up, no matter how much wishful thinking on the part of those with S/GDS. "

...saying that Greenwald now claims the e-mail mentioned by NBC is irrelevant as an issue is not the same as claiming he said the content is irrelevant. You have now added "existence" to your claim, that wasn't your original point.

The fact is that Greenwald made a big deal out of the NBC report, and now he's saying that the e-mail issue is irrelevant.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

97. No,

that's not what he is saying. But keep twisting -- it's highly entertaining.

[ProSense]

110. Yes, it is, and

"No, that's not what he is saying. But keep twisting -- it's highly entertaining."

...what's "entertaining" is the attempt to reconcile his contradiction.

Greenwald is saying the issue is "irrelevant" now because the e-mail claim fell flat and Snowden can't produce any evidence.

I mean, why did he consider this the "biggest news"? Why would he still? Why would the "biggest news" pertain to an issue that is now deemed "irrelevant"?

Wizner didn't claim it was the "biggest news." In fact, he dismissed it as a "red herring."

Ben Wizner, Director of the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project and legal adviser to Snowden, dismissed the controversy over Snowden’s internal efforts as a “red herring” to the larger issue of mass surveillance.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/nsa-releases-snowden-email-nbc-truth/story?id=23918598&singlePage=true

In fact, Wizner goes even further, dismissing the issue of a "complaint":

“The core, the main substance of Snowden’s complaint was not some instance of fraud or misconduct that he stumbled upon that was unknown to inspectors general or Congress. It was an entire system that had been deemed legal by the… oversight mechanisms,” Wizner told ABC News. “The problem was the failure of democratic consent – that an entire system of mass surveillance had been constructed and deployed without [the] consultation of the American people. So, what was he supposed to do?... There wasn’t anyone to tell who didn’t already know it and hadn’t already approved it… There was no channel through which Snowden could have effectively raised his core concerns.”

Interestingly, Wizner's statement actually steps on Snowden's claim: "There wasn’t anyone to tell who didn’t already know it and hadn’t already approved it… There was no channel through which Snowden could have effectively raised his core concerns.”

It's not the first time: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024871696

[WorseBeforeBetter]

125. "...'red herring' to the larger issue of mass surveillance."

Finish the quote.

And Wizner, when using "channels," is referring to Congress, the IG, those who approved the system:

"This whole dispute is irrelevant. It’s a red herring," the American Civil Liberties Union's Ben Wizner said. "What does it mean to say he should have gone channels? He should have called Congress and said, 'I'm calling to report programs that you’ve approved in secret'? The problem was that the public had not been consulted as the NSA constructed and deployed a system of mass surveillance and there was no channel through which to raise those concerns, except to bring the public into that conversation."

Wizner is not "dismissing the issue of a 'complaint'", but pointing out, yet again, that...

“The problem was the failure of democratic consent – that an entire system of mass surveillance had been constructed and deployed without consultation of the American people. So, what was he supposed to do?... There wasn’t anyone to tell who didn’t already know it and hadn’t already approved it…

Again, Greenwald's tweet does not back up the assertion that he considers the issue "irrelevant." Time will tell whether "Snowden can't produce any evidence" -- you don't know that, nor does anyone on this board. But I'm not convinced there isn't additional internal NSA/contractor e-mail correspondence.

[ProSense]

129. Duh? And

"Finish the quote.

And Wizner, when using "channels," is referring to Congress, the IG, those who approved the system:

"This whole dispute is irrelevant. It’s a red herring," the American Civil Liberties Union's Ben Wizner said. "What does it mean to say he should have gone channels? He should have called Congress and said, 'I'm calling to report programs that you’ve approved in secret'? The problem was that the public had not been consulted as the NSA constructed and deployed a system of mass surveillance and there was no channel through which to raise those concerns, except to bring the public into that conversation."

... I posted the quote from the article I cited. From the article:

Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project and legal adviser to Snowden, dismissed the controversy over Snowden’s internal efforts as a “red herring” to the larger issue of mass surveillance.

“The core, the main substance of Snowden’s complaint was not some instance of fraud or misconduct that he stumbled upon that was unknown to inspectors general or Congress. It was an entire system that had been deemed legal by the… oversight mechanisms,” Wizner told ABC News. “The problem was the failure of democratic consent – that an entire system of mass surveillance had been constructed and deployed without [the] consultation of the American people. So, what was he supposed to do?... There wasn’t anyone to tell who didn’t already know it and hadn’t already approved it… There was no channel through which Snowden could have effectively raised his core concerns.”

As I said, it's not the first time Snowden's lawyer have stepped on his claim.

"Was he supposed to call the Senate Intelligence Committee and say, 'I'd like to report to you a program you approved in secret...'?" Snowden legal adviser Ben Wizner of the American Civil Liberties Union said in an interview Friday. "Snowden is not a person who stumbled upon this ltitle secret pocket of misconduct....This wasn’t a situation where it's a question of how to tell the boss and tell Congress—his bosses and Congress were the problem."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024871696

[WorseBeforeBetter]

131. The House voted 303-121 to limit NSA snooping on Americans.

Chew on that. We'll see what the Senate and Obama do.

Thanks GG and Comrade Eddie!

[ProSense]

133. LOL!

"The House voted 303-121 to limit NSA snooping on Americans.

Chew on that. We'll see what the Senate and Obama do.

Thanks GG and Comrade Eddie!"

Evidently, you ran out of excuses in your attempt to reconcile Greenwald's contradictions.

Keep holding out hope that Snowden has evidence of his claim.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

135. Yep, 303-121, ba-by. How many Crap Blogs have brought about...

that sort of result? Seriously.

There's no contradiction, and you know that, or you wouldn't keep replying to me.

Nite, ProSense. One of us has to get some sleep!

[ProSense]

136. LOL! As long as you're happy. n/t

[NanceGreggs]

90. The issue became

"about whether Snowden used email" the minute he claimed he DID use email to express his concerns.

Snowden himself opened that door - so he is in no position to suddenly claim that what's behind the door is irrelevant, when it does nothing to bolster his claims.

I know, I know - it's not about the messenger, it's about the message. But what person possessed of intelligence and common sense doesn't think the messenger bears scrutiny - especially when that messenger keeps making allegations he cannot provide any evidence for?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

123. The issue is NSA over-reach...

not e-mail, carrier pigeon, or bicycle courier to 331 Hart. The issue is the House voting 303-121 to limit NSA snooping on Americans. Have any Crap Blogs brought about that sort of result... on anything? We still have the Senate, and Obama's signature, to see even more of a result.

Has Snowden unequivocally stated that he cannot provide evidence re: additional e-mails? Or are those with S/GDS assuming he cannot provide evidence re: additional e-mails?

[ProSense]

130. Wait,

"Has Snowden unequivocally stated that he cannot provide evidence re: additional e-mails? Or are those with S/GDS assuming he cannot provide evidence re: additional e-mails?"

...you're holding out hope that Snowden has evidence?

Why would Greenwald get so excited by NBC's initial revelation if Snowden has proof? Why doesn't Snowden produce the evidence?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

134. I really don't give a shit, I just enjoy the apoplexy...

Greenwald and Snowden bring about in some of my fellow DUers. It's not something I'm losing sleep over, but I'm not convinced he doesn't have evidence. We'll see.

Perhaps Snowden's lawyer could better address why additional evidence hasn't been produced.

[ProSense]

137. "I'm not convinced he doesn't have evidence. "

Yes, that's what holding out means. LOL!

[randome]

138. If you enjoy anyone's 'apoplexy', you may have deeper problems than you imagine.

Geeze. Why is it so hard to understand different viewpoints? Some of us have looked at the same accusations as you and come to different conclusions. It really is that simple.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

[WorseBeforeBetter]

189. I can live with that.

I'm referring to the manipulation, the name-calling, and the blatant lies hurled at Snowden and Greenwald. I'll be honest, I'm stunned that this sort of "writing" appeals to... anyone:

Malignant narcissistic hypocrisy, thy name is Snowden
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/#iPYuE5Ou8CvYsKww.99XXX

And DU sucks for it being brought here. But at least the vast majority of DUers chew it up and spit it out. Christ, give me Pierce, Rude and Morford.

And to borrow from Discussionist, I appreciate your *civil* reply and agree re: different conclusions.

[randome]

196. Ah, agreement is so much more pleasant than batting our heads against each other!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[WorseBeforeBetter]

198. Indeed. And hell, it's Sunday night...

on to LOLCats!

[NanceGreggs]

156. One of the 'theories' making the rounds

is that Snowden DOES have copies of the emails, and is waiting for the NSA to deny he sent them before producing them himself - with a wide flourish and a loud TA DA!!! - thereby proving the NSA was lying.

That probably accounts for the repetition of "Has Snowden unequivocally stated that he cannot provide evidence re: additional e-mails? Or are those with S/GDS assuming he cannot provide evidence re: additional e-mails?"

Hope springs eternal among the gullible.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

190. LOL No, Nance, "gullible" are...

those sucked in by personality-driven, substance-free blogs.

[NanceGreggs]

153. Snowden is the one

insisting that he sent those emails. He made it an issue.

It's the same old circle: It's not about the messenger - until the messenger makes it about himself (which he often does). And when he puts his foot in his mouth, or gets caught in a lie or an inconsistency, his fans repeat the "it's not about the messenger" mantra.

If it's not about the emails, why are Snowden and GG bringing up the issue?

It seems pretty damned obvious. Is it not obvious to you?

[woo me with science]

148. +1 Of course it's not.

They don't care. Again.

Honesty is not the goal here. The smear to defend NSA is the goal.

[perdita9]

78. Snowden's Not Credible

If he was able to steal millions of emails, he should have known enough to hang onto his own.

After all, he claims to be a fully trained spy AND a genius.

[quakerboy]

86. Words and language have meaning.

And any reasonable reading of the texts you have presented, shows that they do not mean what you are trying read into them

"Biggest news from NBC/Snowden interview:"

As in, the most important thing from the interview is the detail mentioned. The biggest news from my dinner last night was that the steak was really really good. Doesn't make that Big News, or relevant to anything else.

[ProSense]

93. LOL!

And any reasonable reading of the texts you have presented, shows that they do not mean what you are trying read into them

"Biggest news from NBC/Snowden interview:"

As in, the most important thing from the interview is the detail mentioned. The biggest news from my dinner last night was that the steak was really really good. Doesn't make that Big News, or relevant to anything else.

So the "biggest news" wasn't "relevant"? Not only would that make Greenwald overly dramatic in hyping something "irrelevant," but it would also make the entire interview lame. I mean, the "biggest news" is irrelevant.

[Cali_Democrat]

100. ROFL!!! Did I just read that?

[quakerboy]

164. Pretty much

I dont get why you think it deserves a rolly laughing guy. In my experience one (I'm assuming based on length of the first quote) tweet is not exactly "hyping" anything. Did he write a big article or something saying the interview was important? If so that would change the meaning. But I didnt see any link to anything like that in the op.

Based on that assumption, the biggest news from a minor interview is not the same thing as something important. Based purely on the quotes, it would appear that Greenwald was doing exactly that. I'm not sure "damning with faint praise" is the right expression, but it looks like something similar.

Im struggling to come up with a useful example. If you will bear with me stretching a story to make a point, I think I can illustrate. If I got a ticket over for not signaling a turn, on a micro scale it might be the "biggest news" of my defense argument if I could show a video of me using my turn signal. But I might later say that on the macro scale, it was irrelevant whether I had signaled or not, given that the ticket came courtesy of a new traffic drone program that I believed was morally indefensible.

[woo me with science]

149. An entire thread based on this sort of twisting.

Says a lot about the lack of legitimate argument.

[quakerboy]

165. It would seem to, certaintly

I haven't really followed the whole kerfuffle over greenwald. I read a few articles when it all began, and a few more during the whole partner/airport deal. Don't know why i read this particular op. But this whole thing is conflating a few words to mean things they dont actually say. Its not going to get anyone who is not on the bandwagon regardless of facts to agree with the antigreenwald crusade.

[grasswire]

182. this "biggest news" yakkity yak..

...is just the latest "boxes in the garage."

I'm enjoying the cat and mouse game quite a bit, waiting to see if the NSA will have to produce the emails that are even more damaging than the first one (which should be obvious to all.)

Which has precedence? Executive orders, or the Constitution and the law? If the NSA is operating under Executive orders that contradict the Constitution/law, then what we have is a constitutional crisis.

[KoKo]

87. Greenwald is Correct..

But one has to take time to read Wizner's Link.

[ucrdem]

95. The man clearly has a problem remembering what he says from one tweet to the next.

It's probably got something to do with i-phone addiction but he seems to have no regard for consistency, and of course no one bothers to fact check him. Even his print stories change wildly from one month to the next. He's a "journalist" we're told so he can do that.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

107. Pulitzer, baby!

And yes, he won it.

[ucrdem]

108. Perfect example. nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

120. ever heard of an antecedent?

My post is a perfect example of...what? Of Greenwald not being able to recall what he says from one tweet to the next? There's your antecedent, by the way. Learn it, know it, live it.

[Whisp]

176. GG is known for his foul/fowl yap. Stinky Chickenshit.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Luminous Animal]

150. Hahahahahahaha!!!!

The biggest news is that the NSA are proven liars. That is Greenwald's point. Big fucking liars.

That the NSA lied will not help Snowden in court. Because, Snowden has no whistle blower protection.

You are intentionally......

[Whisp]

151. Greenwald's slogan:

[m-lekktor]

158. entertaining thread!!

a fine example of "distractivism". greenwald/snowden sure are causing a meltdown!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

184. You got that right.

I live in the imploding state of North Carolina -- that's where my primary focus is out in the *real* world. But damn if I can't resist a good S/GDS thread on DU.

[ellie50]

163. The real Story isnt Snowden or Greenwald

Someone once described DU as a giant circle jerk. I see now what they meant.

While you posters toss barbs and insults, and debate the character of various players, including Snowden and Greenwald, dont forget that the real story is the governments warrantless spying on all Americans.

Everything else is just a distraction. Don't be fooled.

[Blue_Tires]

183. Figures...

The "It doesn't matter because the story's importance outweighs any secondary concerns." -line is always Greenwald's last word when he knows he lost an argument (it is also used against me here on DU regularly)...That, and his critics "are all just mindless OBOTs..."

Mark my words: Even if video proof of Snowden providing information/expertise to the Russians comes out, THIS will still be their preemptive defense...